https://wccftech.com/intel-and-amd-x86-mobility-cpus-destroy...
Or check multicore scores here: https://browser.geekbench.com/mac-benchmarks
m1 is better by 20% or so, but is 2 fab generations ahead of the intel chips
https://www.anandtech.com/show/16192/the-iphone-12-review/2
The Ryzen 4900H is a 55 watt TDP part with eight performance cores. Despite that it’s far behind the M1 in GeekBench single core and multicore scores.
https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/search?q=4900H
Now as you shown it’s way ahead in Cinebench 23 Multicore benchmark. Let’s assume that’s more representative of real world use, and that being a process behind it will add 15% higher performance when AMD makes a 5 nm successor. That would increase its Cinebench Multicore to roughly 12,700, roughly 60% higher than the M1.
But all Apple has to do is come out with an M1X with eight Firestorm cores. That’s a multicore performance in the same range as the best possible 5 nm AMD CPU, and a TDP barely half of the AMD CPU. And far higher Cinebench single core, and GeekBench single/multicore ratings.
Obviously to swap Firestorm for IceStorm cores they need more transistors or something else has to go (on chip GPU?).
And Apple won’t be making 20 hour MacBook Airs out of this M1X, but they will be able to make 14 hour MacBook Pros with faster discrete GPUs.
And they are about 6 months from doing exactly that. Which is likely going to before AMD 5 nm, so top of line 4900H laptops get smoked on all Cinebench and GeekBench scores while using nearly double the power.
Here's a great example, Intel Core i9 (Desktop, 125w TDP) vs Intel Core i7 (Laptop, 15W). Huge power difference, only ~10% difference in single core clock speeds. https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i9-10900K-v...